Collection Development Matters
Although traditional library infostructures emerged out of a collection of materials housed in an edifice of some type or another, the library of today often boasts devices and other technology that can be checked out to patrons in addition to books, magazines, journals, and other media. The result is often a hybrid collection that consists of physical and digital resources—though that too is evolving and changing. As collections adapt and transform, so does library instruction. It would be rather futile for a library professional to construct a class on searching a particular database if the library did not subscribe to that database. Nothing is quite as frustrating for a librarian than failure to guide a patron to timely, reliable, and available information. Tailoring a class to search a resource that is practically guaranteed to lead to a suboptimal outcome? A poor user experience of negative value to the library and an abysmal outlay of time for the library professional. And the takeaway from these musings is, you ask? Well, that is easy: Collections matter. Still.
For the health sciences librarian engaged in educational and/or instructional activities, collections matter because the collection often supports decisions on what instruction is relevant and necessary to core library constituents. Users involved in systematic reviews, for instance, could expect a health sciences library to carry a modicum of books and/or materials on how to conduct systematic reviews. The collection might also include publications from qualifying and recognized authorities that set standards on the subject. Therefore, instructional services could draw on and promote collection resources that convey the basics of conducting systematic reviews while at the same time emphasizing where and how to search the available literature.
It is through careful collection development blueprints and designs that collection selections and preferences take shape. Solid, innovational collection development stratagems potentially serve as the backbone that underpins the broader apparatus. Hence, one could anticipate that an unhealthy framework would not be conducive to forward motion—or motion of any kind, really—and thus might hamper the overall effectiveness and general well-being of the library and its services.
Salma Abumeeiz and Daria Wingreen-Mason make an interesting case for collection development plans that call for both metric assessments and qualitative measures [1]. Indeed, the two describe a multipronged approach to assessment in “Notes on operations: holistic collection development and the Smithsonian libraries.” In the article, Abumeeiz and Wingreen-Mason encourage one-on-one as well as group interviews with key library stakeholders. They tout the merits of user feedback in helping to inform standard sources of data, in helping to round out popular metrics, and in helping to identify collection gaps.
Allan Scherlen and Alex McAllister, on the other hand, warn against top-heavy dynamics that rely on a select or an elite group of power players to set far-reaching trends [2]. Their article “Voices versus visions: a commentary on academic library collections and new directions” seems to favor mission-driven arrangements that seek to thoroughly examine the information needs of all stakeholders rather than focusing on one or two primary groups to the exclusion of the rest. Then there is “Imagining the future academic library collection” by Michael Levine-Clark [3]. Levine-Clark invites librarians to weigh in on the future of collection development and synthesizes those responses. The results offer some unique and creative perspectives on the subject.
In summation, the underlying theme that appears to weave in and out of the literature concerning thoughtful, intentional collection development practices is, well, thoughtful, intentional collection development practices. That and quality—quality information and quality services. Hopefully, it all links back to user satisfaction, which bodes well for future library services and for the future of libraries everywhere.
References
- Abumeeiz S, Wingreen-Mason D. Holistic collection development and the Smithsonian libraries. Library Resources & Technical Services. 2020;64(1):26–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.61n1.26.
- Scherlen A, McAllister AD. Voices versus visions: a commentary on academic library collections and new directions. Collection Management. 2019;44(2–4):389–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2018.1547999.
- Levine-Clark M. Imagining the future academic library collection. Collection Management. 2019;44(2–4):87–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2019.1610680.